Thursday, October 8, 2009
Your Slice of Zen for the Day
"There are too many ideas and things and people. Too many directions to go. I was starting to believe the reason it matters to care passionately about something is that it whittles the world down to a more manageable size."
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Anti-War Film: An impossible genre?
The War film has has long been an honored staple of the Hollywood Canon as long as film itself has been around. Indeed, the film that codified the language of cinema, The Birth of a Nation (in other words, the movie that created the term "movie." The Birth of a Nation pretty much provides the dictionary definition of "movie," and had the audacity to do it first), has a first half that can easily be construed as a War Film. The genre has mutated to fit the social climate at hand: the 30s saw a deromanticized, ugly version of war after WW1, the 40s were tainted by a desperate recruitment attempt, the 50s and early 60s glorified war in the way that only nations at peace are capable of, the late 60s, 70s, and early 80s saw visions of hell through jungle-colored lenses, and the late 80s through 90s brought a near-fantasy version of war, created by a national policy of sweeping conflict under the rug. Today, we stand at a junction: the world is evolving past the Rambos and the Top Guns, but has yet to find its voice for dealing with contemporary conflict: some films hit (The Hurt Locker, Paradise Now), but the majority (Lions For Lambs, Redacted, In the Valley of Elah) miss.
I'll be honest: war film as a genre has always fascinated me. I once heard it stated that war films were the most interesting of genres, because they allowed humans to play out their regular conflicts to an extreme. This might be the first posts about war as a genre, but it's certainly not the last.
For now, I'd like to make a bold statement: making a truly "anti-war" war film is almost impossible. I would say entirely impossible, but for one fine example, which we will discuss in a moment. This is not to say that an anti-war message can't be conveyed through film. My claim is that doing so within the confines of a stereotypical war film is stunningly hypocritical.
Film as a medium has a difficult relationship with war: on the one hand, film seems to be the perfect way to capture the heightened emotion, the strategizing, the combination of giants fighting one another by deploying the smallest ants. Film can focus on one individual's problem in the midst of thousands and thousands of people fighting for thousands and thousands of others. On the other hand? Film as a medium cannot realistically express war. Things like story, pacing, and dramatic symmetry are lost on war as a reality. To films, however, they are absolutely essential. This creates a problem: a director cannot introduce one without violating the other.
Consider Platoon. This is widely considered one of the best anti-war films ever made, indeed, one of the best war films of any kind ever made. I have an objection, however: its focus on combat. Yes, the Charlie Sheen narrative pretends to make grandiose statements about the loss of innocence, and many empathetic characters die in horrific, brutal ways. But then the combat comes. It's masterfully directed, and incredibly proficient on a technical scale, but it has an energy and a sense of purpose that many viewers will find exhilarating. While I have never been in combat, nor do I plan to, I feel confident in saying that combat is many things, but exhilarating is not one of them. Admittedly, Platoon does not play like a recruitment video (unlike such unabashedly biased films as Top Gun). Too many red-blooded males watch the movie, however, and can't help but be excited by the images of combat shown. I have, however, encountered people who have watched the film and left with a positive image of war. And, mind you, Platoon is a very unpleasant film. If these young men can watch Platoon and be excited, imagine their reaction to the jingoistic works of Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay.
Here is where I should say that an anti-war film in the context of an actual war film is impossible. However, it only takes one counterexample to keep conjecture from becoming reality. Thus, I humbly submit All Quiet on the Western Front for your consideration.
All Quiet on the Western Front adroitly sidesteps all of the problems I outlined earlier. It avoids attempting to wring drama out of a focused plot by leaving plot by the wayside: the film is a series of vignettes, whose only connection is that they happen to the same group of people. The film avoids showing battles almost entirely. There is one exception, a third of the way into the film: this scene ignores strategy and character completely. Indeed, one can't even tell which side is which. And that's the point: All Quiet... eliminates the possibility of routing for "the right side." Instead, it shows what is best described as a montage of death: countless men running into gunfire, their political ideology rendered irrelevant by the swift and sudden introduction of a bullet into their vital organs. There's absolutely nothing exhilarating about this All Quiet..., because there's nothing exhilarating about death, which is all the film has time to portray. The film itself says it best. Here is the opening title card:
This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war.
And later, the film's thesis statement, as delivered by Lew Ayres:
"We live in the trenches out there, we fight, we try not to be killed, and sometimes we are. That's all."
All Quiet on the Western Front. The only true anti-war film ever made.
Disagree? Give me a good counterexample. How does one go about dramatizing war without making it look enjoyably dramatic?
I'll be honest: war film as a genre has always fascinated me. I once heard it stated that war films were the most interesting of genres, because they allowed humans to play out their regular conflicts to an extreme. This might be the first posts about war as a genre, but it's certainly not the last.
For now, I'd like to make a bold statement: making a truly "anti-war" war film is almost impossible. I would say entirely impossible, but for one fine example, which we will discuss in a moment. This is not to say that an anti-war message can't be conveyed through film. My claim is that doing so within the confines of a stereotypical war film is stunningly hypocritical.
Film as a medium has a difficult relationship with war: on the one hand, film seems to be the perfect way to capture the heightened emotion, the strategizing, the combination of giants fighting one another by deploying the smallest ants. Film can focus on one individual's problem in the midst of thousands and thousands of people fighting for thousands and thousands of others. On the other hand? Film as a medium cannot realistically express war. Things like story, pacing, and dramatic symmetry are lost on war as a reality. To films, however, they are absolutely essential. This creates a problem: a director cannot introduce one without violating the other.
Consider Platoon. This is widely considered one of the best anti-war films ever made, indeed, one of the best war films of any kind ever made. I have an objection, however: its focus on combat. Yes, the Charlie Sheen narrative pretends to make grandiose statements about the loss of innocence, and many empathetic characters die in horrific, brutal ways. But then the combat comes. It's masterfully directed, and incredibly proficient on a technical scale, but it has an energy and a sense of purpose that many viewers will find exhilarating. While I have never been in combat, nor do I plan to, I feel confident in saying that combat is many things, but exhilarating is not one of them. Admittedly, Platoon does not play like a recruitment video (unlike such unabashedly biased films as Top Gun). Too many red-blooded males watch the movie, however, and can't help but be excited by the images of combat shown. I have, however, encountered people who have watched the film and left with a positive image of war. And, mind you, Platoon is a very unpleasant film. If these young men can watch Platoon and be excited, imagine their reaction to the jingoistic works of Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay.
Here is where I should say that an anti-war film in the context of an actual war film is impossible. However, it only takes one counterexample to keep conjecture from becoming reality. Thus, I humbly submit All Quiet on the Western Front for your consideration.
All Quiet on the Western Front adroitly sidesteps all of the problems I outlined earlier. It avoids attempting to wring drama out of a focused plot by leaving plot by the wayside: the film is a series of vignettes, whose only connection is that they happen to the same group of people. The film avoids showing battles almost entirely. There is one exception, a third of the way into the film: this scene ignores strategy and character completely. Indeed, one can't even tell which side is which. And that's the point: All Quiet... eliminates the possibility of routing for "the right side." Instead, it shows what is best described as a montage of death: countless men running into gunfire, their political ideology rendered irrelevant by the swift and sudden introduction of a bullet into their vital organs. There's absolutely nothing exhilarating about this All Quiet..., because there's nothing exhilarating about death, which is all the film has time to portray. The film itself says it best. Here is the opening title card:
This story is neither an accusation nor a confession, and least of all an adventure, for death is not an adventure to those who stand face to face with it. It will try simply to tell of a generation of men who, even though they may have escaped its shells, were destroyed by the war.
And later, the film's thesis statement, as delivered by Lew Ayres:
"We live in the trenches out there, we fight, we try not to be killed, and sometimes we are. That's all."
All Quiet on the Western Front. The only true anti-war film ever made.
Disagree? Give me a good counterexample. How does one go about dramatizing war without making it look enjoyably dramatic?
Your Slice of Zen for the Day
Mason: Nicole, did the Pied Piper take the children away because he was mad that the town didn't pay him?
Nicole: That's right.
Mason: Well, if he knew magic, if he could get the kids into the mountain, why couldn't he use his magic pipe to make the people pay him for getting rid of the rats?
Nicole: Because...he wanted them to be punished.
Mason: So was he mean?
Nicole: No, not mean. Just very angry.
Nicole: That's right.
Mason: Well, if he knew magic, if he could get the kids into the mountain, why couldn't he use his magic pipe to make the people pay him for getting rid of the rats?
Nicole: Because...he wanted them to be punished.
Mason: So was he mean?
Nicole: No, not mean. Just very angry.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Finding diamonds in the rough
Sometimes, movies suck. True story. Sometimes a movie is so godawful, the only thing you can do is stare at the screen, hoping that you can light the theater on fire through sheer willpower alone (editor's note: in my experience, this technique does not work. Still, we at A Slice of Movie Zen do not condone arson as punishment for cinematic sins. Unless it's Seven Pounds. Then we provide the gasoline.). Some movies steal precious hours from your life that you'll never get back, but will continue to haunt your nightmares, stalking the halls of your nighttime world like a Michael Myers from Rob Zombie's Halloween remakes (incidentally, a movie whose sheer badness will haunt your nightmares in just this fashion).
It's true. Some movies suck. This does not mean, however, that you should despair, dear reader. In even the worst films, there lie hidden treasures waiting to be discovered, waiting to save the viewer from two hours of aural and visual torture. Being the committed journalist that I am, I have inflicted the worst kinds of psychological torture upon myself to search for hidden gems. What I will attempt to do in this series (yes, I'm trying to start series I can run with here) is provide you with the map to these gems, in case you ever find yourself in a situation desperate enough to use it.
In other words? I've watched some terrible movies, and I'd like to spare you the same fate. But, if you find yourself watching these movies, I'd like to provide you with a fingerhold in the great rock-face of sanity. Enjoy.
Our first installment? The Village. Yes. The best comedy of 2004, hands down. Here is a sampling of some of M. Night Shamalyan's witty, insight-laden dialogue:
Ivy: I am in love.
Edward: I know.
Ivy: He is in love with me.
Edward: I know.
Ivy: If he dies, all that is life to me will die with him.
Moving stuff. Here is the script again, effortlessly summoning tension through skillful employment of passive voice:
Edward: Ivy.
Ivy: Yes, father?
Edward: Do your very best not to scream.
Sadly, pixelated letters cannot convey the poignant emotion with which actors Joaquin Phoenix, Bryce Dallas Howard, and William Hurt, and friends garnish these fine words with. Suffice to say that the Sears Department Store Mannequin rendition of Waiting For Godot (located in Women's Wear) is the only thing I've witnessed recently that can compete with the performances displayed. This is to mention nothing of Adrien Brody, in his touching rendition of the Man-Who-Might-Be-Retarded. Oh well. He who might be retarded is still cognizant enough to put on his summer camp's costume contest entry and terrorize a village of pseudo-Amish vaudevillians.
Such are the joys of The Village. Joys they are indeed, but not of the variety that those who created the film intended.
And then the music kicks in. If you have iTunes, search the store for The Village soundtrack. Listen to the previews of "The Gravel Road," "The Vote," "Noah Visits," and "Race to Resting Rock." Youtube can also be used to accomplish this. I don't know about you, but I was dumbfounded. In the middle of this completely inane film, composer James Newton Howard has hidden compositions of nearly unsurpassed beauty and depth. His music is disturbingly audacious in its proficiency: when watching the film, it has the gall to almost persuade you that you care what's going on. Almost. The soundtrack of the film works as a stand-alone piece far more compelling than its source. In fact, I think we should all take a moment to thank Mr. Shamalyan for making The Village. Yes, it makes me want to run face-first into a wall with pencils shoved up my nostrils, but, without the film, this music would never have been composed, and the world would be a worse place. Thank you, M. Thank you.
Your Slice of Zen for the Day
"People always say to me, 'when you get to the NBA, don't forget about me.' Well, I should've said back, 'if I don't make it to the NBA, don't forget about me.' "
Monday, October 5, 2009
Overlooked: Israeli cinema
When someone says "foreign films," few locations come to mind: France, Italy, Germany, perhaps films from East Asia. These countries, no doubt, deserve their prestigious reputations in the international film community, but, in truth, they represent a mere fraction of the product produced by films from around the globe. A myriad of countries across the globe create fantastic films each year, and I'd like to take a moment to shine the spotlight on some overlooked foreign cinema.
Today's overlooked country? Israel. in the past five years, Israel has experienced something a film renaissance that reflects a more socially and politically conscious nation. Films like Waltz With Bashir, Beaufort, Lebanon, and Paradise Now (which, technically from Palestine, but was created by the same school of filmmakers) have been pushing the envelope for international cinema by crossing boundaries associated with mediums (Waltz With Bashir), experimenting with form and content (Lebanon), or approaching a controversial subject with no easy answers (Paradise Now).
All of the films mentioned above share political and thematic motivations. Waltz With Bashir and Lebanon even examine the same conflict. These recent Israeli films reflect what could be construed as growing pacifism and an increasingly harsh eye on the nation's foreign policy in the past. All of these films portray combat in one form or another, yet none play as recruitment advertisements. Waltz With Bashir profiles the effects of denial and inaction in the field of battle, Lebanon examines the psychological terror of being trapped in violent situations, Beaufort addresses the lunacy of bureaucracy in war as well as the futility of combat, and Paradise Now asks difficult questions about the possibility of peace in a world populated with fanatics.
Can this new movement be seen as a growing social unrest in one of the world's most conflict-ridden regions, or is it simply a liberal dissonance in the choral voice of the general public? While the implications of the Israeli new film movement is for the reader to decide, what's undeniable is the technical virtuosity of the films being produced. Waltz With Bashir took flash animation to new levels while making a compelling argument for animation as a medium for adults, while Lebanon displays its technical skill by taking place almost entirely inside of a tank. Even Beaufort, which has its detractors, is a taut, tense piece of film-making. Whomever is teaching these film-makers, they're doing something right.
Until this point, were you even aware that Israel made films? Have you seen any of these? What other countries come to mind when you think of foreign film? I'd like to run this as a bit of a miniseries, highlighting overlooked foreign cinema from across the globe, so sound off! If I don't hear any countries that y'all want discussed, I'll move on (maybe next week?) with South Africa, Romania, and South Korea.
Today's overlooked country? Israel. in the past five years, Israel has experienced something a film renaissance that reflects a more socially and politically conscious nation. Films like Waltz With Bashir, Beaufort, Lebanon, and Paradise Now (which, technically from Palestine, but was created by the same school of filmmakers) have been pushing the envelope for international cinema by crossing boundaries associated with mediums (Waltz With Bashir), experimenting with form and content (Lebanon), or approaching a controversial subject with no easy answers (Paradise Now).
All of the films mentioned above share political and thematic motivations. Waltz With Bashir and Lebanon even examine the same conflict. These recent Israeli films reflect what could be construed as growing pacifism and an increasingly harsh eye on the nation's foreign policy in the past. All of these films portray combat in one form or another, yet none play as recruitment advertisements. Waltz With Bashir profiles the effects of denial and inaction in the field of battle, Lebanon examines the psychological terror of being trapped in violent situations, Beaufort addresses the lunacy of bureaucracy in war as well as the futility of combat, and Paradise Now asks difficult questions about the possibility of peace in a world populated with fanatics.
Can this new movement be seen as a growing social unrest in one of the world's most conflict-ridden regions, or is it simply a liberal dissonance in the choral voice of the general public? While the implications of the Israeli new film movement is for the reader to decide, what's undeniable is the technical virtuosity of the films being produced. Waltz With Bashir took flash animation to new levels while making a compelling argument for animation as a medium for adults, while Lebanon displays its technical skill by taking place almost entirely inside of a tank. Even Beaufort, which has its detractors, is a taut, tense piece of film-making. Whomever is teaching these film-makers, they're doing something right.
Until this point, were you even aware that Israel made films? Have you seen any of these? What other countries come to mind when you think of foreign film? I'd like to run this as a bit of a miniseries, highlighting overlooked foreign cinema from across the globe, so sound off! If I don't hear any countries that y'all want discussed, I'll move on (maybe next week?) with South Africa, Romania, and South Korea.
Your Slice of Zen for the Day
"They tell you what the ingredients are, and how it's guaranteed to exterminate every insect in the world, but they don't tell you whether or not it's painless. And I say, insect or man, death should always be painless."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)